I’d argue Trump’s.

Most of his detractors aren’t exposed to his results, only his personality, as seen through the prism of the hyperventilating pearl-clutchers of cable news and twitter. A broader audience will see these numbers and results, provided they don’t change the channel first.

Bloomberg’s successes in New York, and they were considerable, are not things he can run on anymore in his party.

I think given the current climate, they are both ineffective because they spent money on super bowl ads. At least for myself, that’s not something I’d like to see politicians spend millions of dollars on.

For Super Bowl audiences I would say Trumps. The energy fits into the context of a sporting event. It’s a party for a lot of people, a celebration of sorts, and I think in that context Bloomberg’s will feel like a downer and turn people off. The audience won’t be primed for that kind of message.

If one had to be the “winner,” I regrettably have to say Trump. While the wage growth stat was wrong, the job stat was right. That makes people feel good. The takeaway is clear: “prosperity.” The strategy on Bloomberg’s spot is questionable. People already have their views on guns locked in place. The spot is not going to change anyone’s mind during a Super Bowl party. The takeaway is not clear. Is he banning guns? If so, how? If not, then what is he talking about? That is really vague. Bloomberg should have hit Trump sharply and decisively in a weak area.

Ok so, my own personal feelings aside, I’m trying to be objective (which is obviously hard when I despise Trump) I do think Bloomberg’s ad is the clear winner. For me a personal and heartfelt story is always going to win over random facts and stats.

I can’t bring myself to watch the Trump ad and give him a view.

I kinda wish Bloomberg called Trump poor? Poor Donald... But then again going super offensive isn’t effective, especially with Bloomberg’s base

The Trump ad was very effective. And I say this as someone who doesn’t want to see him re-elected. It makes a very clear promise to the right audience within a relevant media environment. “Rah rah, make America great!” The strategy and execution work. The Bloomberg ad is a generic execution of a flawed strategy; he won’t gain supporters from it but he’ll certainly whip Trump fans into an anti-liberal frenzy. “The Democrats are coming for our guns!”

I love Bloomberg’s spot - it tells a story, it focuses on a single message, and presents a very sympathetic situation. In the end it’s an awesome PSA but not a presidential election ad.

As much as I despise Trump his spot was far more effective in presenting his case to be re-elected (facts aside).

Given the ads will play in loud environments like bars and parties, Trump’s spot has the upper hand. You read a few supers and you get it. The Bloomberg spot takes too long to get to the point.

The best is yet to come!

If it’s at all relevant, I have some inside knowledge of the situation and I’m pretty sure the Bloomberg ad was concepted prior to the decision to make it specifically a super bowl ad.

Effective depends on the objective and target. If Bloomberg was hoping to influence AA women, an important voting block for any Democrat, then it was effective (according to the positive feedback from a FB group with 10K+ AA women that I am in). Same group has questioned Bloomberg as a candidate due to his Stop and Frisk policy and views on the Central Park 5. Lots of eye rolls with Trump’s pandering with the minority job numbers. Expensive way to get a niche audience, but caught their attention.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e376801c5b6f262332b765d?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000047&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=bv_fb&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&fbclid=IwAR0rPG_-ilwP72hrioalQzZjXs6aojT0iglO3HtyeaVJ2YqVP7Zkwd9REO4